Wildlife Promise » Alberta Clipperhttp://blog.nwf.org
The National Wildlife Federation's blogTue, 03 Mar 2015 16:19:30 +0000en-UShourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=3.9.2Historic U.S, China Climate Agreement Signals a Breakthrough for Wildlifehttp://blog.nwf.org/2014/11/historic-u-s-china-climate-agreement-signals-a-breakthrough-for-wildlife/
http://blog.nwf.org/2014/11/historic-u-s-china-climate-agreement-signals-a-breakthrough-for-wildlife/#commentsThu, 13 Nov 2014 17:14:54 +0000http://blog.nwf.org/?p=101692Read more >]]>A landmark achievement has occurred in efforts to move climate solutions for wildlife forward. After years of fits and starts, China and the U.S. – the two countries that account for about 40 percent of the world’s carbon emissions – agreed to an historic effort to curb carbon pollution. This marks a major development and signals the growing momentum towards breakthrough progress on stopping runaway climate change, which could cause massive extinctions and habitat loss.

In the agreement, the U.S. promised carbon reductions of 26-28% by 2025 – which would require aggressive but achievable reductions in addition to the President’s standing commitment of a 17% reduction by 2020. For China, which has soaring emissions, it agrees to stop growth in emissions by 2030 and commits to having 20% of their energy come from non-fossil fuel based energy.

This development has serious implications for both domestic and international efforts to cut carbon emissions and protect wildlife. Inaction by the U.S. and China has thwarted international actions to reduce carbon pollution. With an international summit in Paris set to discuss this issue next year, this agreement clears the way for real progress on an international accord to tackle greenhouse gas emissions.

At home, this will spur the drive to transition to cleaner, renewable sources of energy. Here are just a few examples.

Brook Trout and other cold water game fish are vulnerable to a warming climate (credit: USFWS)

This target almost certainly needs to and can be tightened to meet the promise made in the agreement with China. Primarily, major gains in renewable energy and energy efficiency could result in further reductions, as much as 40% or more by 2030.

This is not only possible, but would bring a host of environmental and economic benefits. Solar and wind are by far the fastest growing power sectors in America. Many states are already on pace to surpass the levels of reductions estimated for them in the current draft Clean Power Plan. This agreement will make it all the more important that EPA issue a final rule that realizes the full potential of achievable reductions from transitioning to renewable energy and reducing demand through efficiency measures.

China’s commitment in this agreement to get 20% of their power from non-fossil fuel sources demonstrates the accelerating pace of renewable development. Germany is actually well ahead of this, on pace to have 60% of its energy from renewables by sometime in the next decade. In addition to providing clean energy for wildlife, renewable energy also presents are major economic opportunity to provide home grown jobs.

We need to be at the forefront of the renewable revolution that is already in motion.

Offshore Wind

China, like Europe, has also begun to tap the massive offshore wind resources available to provide coastal and other population centers clean, wildlife friendly energy.

The U.S. does not have one turbine spinning off its shores, despite the fact that there is an estimated energy potential off the Atlantic coast that is 4 times the whole U.S. demand. It’s time to tap into that, and this agreement should help continue the push to do that.

Projects off the New England coast are set for construction as soon as next year. We need to get responsible offshore wind developed at a scale and on timeline that allows major urban centers to break reliance on fossil fuels and bypass long-term reliance on supposed “bridge” fossil fuels like fracked gas.

Dirty Fuels

The President has already promised to reject the Keystone XL pipeline if it “exacerbates” the problem of climate change. With tar sands fuel at least 17% more carbon intensive on a life-cycle basis than regular oil, it clearly does.

The President has made remarkable progress reducing carbon emissions from cars and trucks, but building carbon intensive tar sand pipelines while try to cut carbon is like starting your diet by doubling up on dessert.

To achieve the emissions required to meet the new agreement and put us on a path to protecting wildlife from climate change impacts, the President needs to say no the Keystone XL. He also needs to direct his State Department to reverse an illegal scheme it approved to allow a doubling of tar sands to flow into the Great Lakes region and beyond on the Alberta Clipper line that brings tar sands from Canada to the Midwest.

The President has reiterated his promise to measure KXL against the facts and await an appeal of a decision in Nebraska regarding the rights of landowners, who don’t want the risks of dirty tar sands oil, before deciding on the pipeline.

Unfortunately, this issue is getting mired in partisan politics. But the facts are clear. Less risky, lower carbon sources need to power our transportation sector to give wildlife a chance. Long-term tar sands infrastructure will doom wildlife and make carbon reduction commitments impossible to achieve.

Methane

Methane is a potent green-gas that is at least 20 times as powerful as carbon dioxide. Methane currently accounts for 9% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Much of this methane pollution comes from oil and gas operations where the methane leaks or is purposely vented in the air.

This pollution is literally a resource wasted. Fortunately, methane can be captured in a low-cost and technically achievable that pays back over time. Pursuant to an Administration strategy to reduce methane pollution, the Department of Interior’s Bureau of Land Management and EPA are both in various stages of considering rulemaking to stop methane pollution.

Strong action to curb methane pollution is an easy, low-cost, win-win and necessary way to achieve carbon pollution reductions and help meet the new 2025 carbon emissions goal.

This agreement is a significant step forward for America’s wildlife. No individual nation can confront climate change alone and today, the world’s two largest carbon polluters are committing to solve this problem together.

We must continue to help our wildlife and communities cope with the climate impacts that we’re already seeing, but adaptation alone simply dooms future generations to shrinking habitats, more extreme storms, and greater sea level rise. We must lead the world in cutting industrial carbon pollution and today’s agreement is important progress.

It is clear that the arc of progress and history is now on the side of wildlife and clean energy. The U.S-China agreement promises to bring us a major step closer to achieving needed carbon pollution reductions in time ro protect wildlife. It is also a strong signal that President Obama has made climate a legacy issue and is determined to be on the right side of history.

]]>http://blog.nwf.org/2014/11/historic-u-s-china-climate-agreement-signals-a-breakthrough-for-wildlife/feed/0State Department Approves Illegal Scheme for Doubling Tar Sands Flowing through the Great Lakeshttp://blog.nwf.org/2014/08/state-department-approves-illegal-scheme-for-doubling-tar-sands-flowing-through-the-great-lakes/
http://blog.nwf.org/2014/08/state-department-approves-illegal-scheme-for-doubling-tar-sands-flowing-through-the-great-lakes/#commentsMon, 25 Aug 2014 19:20:19 +0000http://blog.nwf.org/?p=99791Read more >]]>Updated: Take action below to tell the State Department not to allow expansion of the Alberta Clipper tar sands pipeline.

On August 18, 2014, the State Department posted documents that show Enbridge has hatched a scheme to almost double the flow of tar sands into the Great Lakes region along its Alberta Clipper pipeline ( also known as Line 67), in contradiction to its existing permit. In a privately sent letter from a mid-level State Department official, the State Department acquiesced to Enbridge’s new plan.This letter has yet to be made public by the State Department.

This is a substantial change in how tar sands enters the United States. Federal law requires the State Department to approve any such change only if the following requirements have been met: (1) public notice and involvement, (2) a detailed environmental review, and (3) a national interest determination. This is the process governing review of the Keystone XL pipeline. But here, none of these requirements have been followed.

Increased tar sands in the Great Lakes would present spill risks to the wildlife and people that depend on these treasures, as well as spurring carbon pollution and climate change.

The State Department must immediately correct this illegal mistake and stop Enbridge from any tar sands expansion along the Alberta Clipper line until the law has been followed. A failure to do so violates both the law and President Obama’s commitment to ensure that tar sands pipeline projects not exacerbate the problem of climate change.

Great Blue Heron covered in oil from the Enbridge oil spill in Kalamazoo, Michigan Photo/David Kenyon

Enbridge’s Plans to Move Tar Sands through the Great Lakes

Enbridge, a giant Canadian oil pipeline company, operates a vast array of pipelines through the Great Lakes region that carry climate-disrupting, toxic tar sands from Northern Alberta to refineries in the region and beyond. The main artery for this system is Alberta Clipper, a 1,000 mile line that transports tar sands to terminus in Superior, Wisconsin, where the tar sands is either refined or loaded onto other pipes for refinery or possible export.

Alberta Clipper currently has a Presidential Permit allowing it to ship up to 450,000 barrels per day (bpd) on the that line. To fulfill the industry’s desire to increase carbon intensive tar sands extraction, Enbridge submitted an Application to the State Department in November of 2012 to ultimately approximately double the amount of tar sands flowing through Alberta Clipper to 880,000 bpd. This would make it larger than the controversial Keystone XL pipeline.

The State Department made clear that it would require a new amended permit before this expansion could take place and that it would prepare, prior to approval of any expansion, a comprehensive Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, or environmental review, that will include “information and analysis about potential impacts associated with the proposed increased volume of crude oil, as well as any other subjects that may need to be updated because there exist significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns bearing on the proposed action or its impacts.”

This review process has been underway, with the State Department accepting scoping comments on the review process in May of 2013. Applicable law requires that the State Department issue a draft review, take and consider public comments on that review, and then make a reasoned determination as to whether Enbridge’s expansion proposal is in the national interest.

While there is not a specific test for the national interest, in a June 25, 2013 speech, President Obama stated that tar sands pipelines projects are not in the national interest if they “exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution.” After a previous consultant withdrew for unknown reasons, the State Department contracted with another outside consultant in or about March of 2014 to resume the environmental review process.

Scheming to Avoid Review

In a June 16, 2014 letter made public by the State Department on August 20, 2014, Enbridge attorneys provided details of a plan first laid out in a referenced meeting between Enbridge and State Department officials on June 3, 2014 to approximately double the capacity of Alberta Clipper without going through the required review process.

Enbridge’s plan is to increase the volume of the flow of tar sands on Alberta Clipper by pumping tar sands to a neighboring pipeline (Line 3) north of the US/Canada border and then pumping it back to Alberta Clipper just south of the border. Line 3 has a Presidential Permit, but unlike Alberta Clipper’s permit it does not appear to expressly limit the capacity of that line. However, Line 3 is not a tar sands pipeline and was not approved as such.

This switch would currently allow an increase of volume of tar sands on the Alberta Clipper line of up to 800,000 bpd. This would effectively double the flow of carbon intensive tar sands on the line – the very thing Enbridge is seeking in its permit application and State Department is supposedly reviewing.

Tar Sands protesters via Rainforest Action Network/Flickr

State Department’s Illegal Approval of this Scheme

On July 24, 2014, Patrick Dunn, a mid-level State Department official, wrote a letter to Enbridge’s attorneys stating that Enbridge’s plan to move up to 800,000 bpd on Alberta Clipper by switching lines with Line 3 at the border does “not require authorization.” This is like interpreting a speed limit as only applying to the road, but not the road’s shoulder.

To make matters worse, this letter was never made public or subjected to public review. The Keystone XL pipeline – which is indefinitely delayed – has already received millions of public comments expressing concern over the impacts of tar sands.

Enbridge’s proposal violates its permit which does not allow it ship more tar sands and also appears to violate Line 3′s permit, which does not contemplate moving such a high volume of tar sands. State Department must follow the law before approving the proposed change. Enbridge’s permit limits the flow on Alberta Clipper to 450,000 and State Department has already made clear any increase requires an amended permit and comprehensive environmental review.

The State Department must reverse this decision, prohibit Enbridge from moving forward with any capacity increase until the current review, and ensure the President’s climate test is applied to this effort double the amount of toxic tar sands snaking through the Great Lakes.

]]>http://blog.nwf.org/2014/08/state-department-approves-illegal-scheme-for-doubling-tar-sands-flowing-through-the-great-lakes/feed/45Scientists Call for Tar Sands Moratoriumhttp://blog.nwf.org/2014/06/scientists-call-for-tar-sands-moratorium/
http://blog.nwf.org/2014/06/scientists-call-for-tar-sands-moratorium/#commentsThu, 26 Jun 2014 17:07:10 +0000http://blog.nwf.org/?p=97613Read more >]]>In a pointed article in the prestigious journal Nature, eight scientists and economists call for a moratorium on new tar sands projects“unless developments are consistent with national and international commitments to reducing carbon pollution.” The scientists make clear that tar sands expansion is far from inevitable if the right policy approach is taken.

They conclude that if Keystone XL and other tar sands decisions are not made in the context of broader climate consequences from these energy development choices, it would demonstrate “flawed policies and failed leadership.”

They could not be more right.

Scientists have called for comprehensive policies to ensure decisions about tar sands are consistent with carbon pollution reduction goals. Flickr photo by Dru Oja Jay.

Need for a Comprehensive Policy to Deciding Tar Sands Projects

The scientists correctly point out that incremental, project-by-project, isolated decision-making absent policies that “acknowledge the global consequences of expanding oil sands” “creates the misguided idea that oil-sands development is inevitable,” restrict[s] the range of choices,” and causes unnecessary harm to our climate and wildlife.

This call for a moratorium comes at an apt time. The controversial and ill-conceived Keystone XL pipeline is delayed indefinitely awaiting resolution of a route dispute in Nebraska concerning landowner say over whether the company can force the pipeline through their land.

Meanwhile, the State Department is considering whether or not approve another proposed major expansion of an existing pipeline carrying tar sands into the Great Lakes region, the Alberta Clipper pipeline. Thus far, there has been no indication that these two interconnected actions with major climate and wildlife impacts will be viewed collectively.

They need to be.

These decisions also arise at a time when President Obama has made tackling climate change a priority. He has already enacted tough fuel economy standards for cars and recently put forward proposed rules to cut carbon pollution from power plants. Almost a year ago to the day, he made it clear that a tar sands pipeline should not be approved if it will exacerbate the problem of climate change.

As the scientists in Nature explain, investments like Keystone XL and Alberta Clipper “create a ‘lock-in’ that commits society to decades of environmental degradation, increased risk of contamination and spills, and unsustainable carbon pollution.”

The scientists call for a moratorium on new projects and comprehensive policy ensuring tar sands decisions are made consistent with climate goals is a needed one. But already it is more than clear that building tar sands new pipelines or expanding or converting existing pipelines for tar sands transport fails the President’s climate test.

President Obama Can Keep Tar Sands in the Ground

Industry needs pipelines for tar sands expansion. With pipeline proposals attempting to access the coasts in Canada far off in the future or tied up in controversy and rail offering only limited transport opportunities, there are few viable avenues left for the industry to move land-locked tar sands to coveted international markets. In fact, current opposition to major pipelines has already resulted in the cancellation of two major tar sands mining and drilling proposals and caused Canada’s trade association for Big Oil to reduce its forecast for projected tar sands mining and drilling.

One need only look at the current proposals or likely proposals for expansion to see how much sway President Obama and Secretary Kerry have over whether we lock-in a future of tar sands pollution, or keep tar sands in the ground:

TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline, with the permitting process now shelved, would add 830,000 barrels per day of capacity.

Enbridge’s Alberta Clipper, which feeds into a pipeline system throughout the Great Lakes, expansion would add another 440,000 barrels per day.

Likely reversal of the Portland-Montreal Pipe Line and its conversion to tar sands use would add up to 600,000 barrels per day of tar sands.

Conversion of Enbridge’s Line 3 pipeline, which also crosses into the Midwest, to tar sands would add another 750,000 barrels per day of tar sands.

In short, most pipeline projects allowing tar sands expansion now fall under the jurisdiction of the State Department. No single entity now has more say than the Obama Administration as to whether or not the tar sands climate bomb is ignited. This provides the Obama Administration with an enormous opportunity to reject these pipelines based on the plain fact that they are counter to the need to reduce carbon pollution for people and wildlife.

The facts are plain; the science has been spoken. President Obama must again stand up for future generations and wildlife by sending a signal to markets and the world that major carbon polluting infrastructure like Keystone XL and Alberta Clipper will no longer get a green light and a better future is at hand.

]]>http://blog.nwf.org/2014/06/scientists-call-for-tar-sands-moratorium/feed/0One Year After Mayflower, Time to Say ‘No’ to Dangerous Pipelineshttp://blog.nwf.org/2014/03/one-year-after-mayflower-time-to-say-no-to-dangerous-pipelines/
http://blog.nwf.org/2014/03/one-year-after-mayflower-time-to-say-no-to-dangerous-pipelines/#commentsFri, 28 Mar 2014 12:05:12 +0000http://blog.nwf.org/?p=93628Read more >]]>On March 17, a damaged pipeline in southwest Ohio leaked 20,000 gallons of crude oil into a nature preserve. As if the oil itself hadn’t hurt enough small animals and wrecked enough habitat, crews had to build a new road through the preserve to get heavy cleanup machinery to the site.

On March 22, a fuel tanker and cargo ship collided in Galveston, Texas, dumping 168,000 gallons of fuel oil into Galveston Bay. TV images of beaches painted black with oil provided only a small snapshot of the habitat destruction taking place. A nearby wildlife sanctuary that attracts between 50,000 and 70,000 shorebirds annually was impacted and according to Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, thousands of those birds were put at risk.

And in Michigan a similar situation is unfolding. On March 24, BP’s Whiting refinery – one of the nation’s biggest, which was recently overhauled to process Canadian tar sands crude – spilled an unknown amount of oil into Lake Michigan, which supplies drinking water for 7 million people around Chicago and provides critical habitat for countless birds, fish and animals living along the shoreline .

Pipeline accidents and oil spills now are occurring almost like a plague spreading to communities across the U.S. Three oil spills in different states in just the past two weeks!

Communities and Wildlife Pay a High Price for Spills While Oil Industry Profits Soar

According to an analysis of data from the agency charged with regulating pipelines, since 1986 there have been nearly 8,000 significant pipeline incidents, resulting in more than 500 deaths, more than 2,300 injuries, and nearly $7 billion in damage. We have all seen the oiled sea otters, ducks, pelicans, turtles and other wildlife from these horrific spills.

Oil spills take lives, ruin lives, poison drinking water, make people sick, destroy communities, and kill and injure wildlife. They take years, sometimes decades, to clean up. Oil from the Exxon Valdez – which just recently celebrated its twenty-fifth anniversary – still pollutes Price William Sound and the herring and other wildlife populations continue to be impacted.

A year ago this weekend, residents of a quiet suburban neighborhood in Mayflower, Arkansas, watched helplessly as heavy, toxic tar sands oil gushed out of a pipeline, poured across their yards and into their street, covering everything in black muck and releasing toxic gases. The spill made national news, and people around the country saw residents being escorted out of their homes with just a few belongings. In the case of at least twenty-two families, never to return. Turtles, ducks, muskrats and other animals were all oiled, many of them killed.

The fossil fuel industry seems to think these spills are just a cost of doing business. Homes have been abandoned in Mayflower and residents have been forced to uproot their lives and leave. In Prince William Sound, lives and industries remain scarred . Wildlife in these areas continues to feel the impacts of ecological collapse. Yet, big oil profits have never been higher.

Enough is Enough

When, where and how big will the next spill will be? Will we able to clean it up—ever? And how many birds, fish and animals will suffer?

One year after Mayflower, it is clearer than ever that the time is now to move beyond risky fossil fuel and build a robust, clean, safe energy future.

We will only be free of the threat of oil spills when we end our dependence on oil.

We can start protecting our communities and wildlife and speed the transition away from risky oil by saying no to major pipeline proposals for oil we don’t need. The State Department is currently considering whether to approve two tar sands pipeline proposals – Keystone XL and the Alberta Clipper expansion. Tar sands is even harder to clean up than regular oil, and much of the tar sands oil traveling through these proposed projects would be exported.

By not locking in dirty, dangerous fossil fuel infrastructure, we will create more space and opportunity to advance development of cleaner, safer fuels.

President Obama has made a commitment to reducing carbon pollution. Saying “No” to tar sands pipelines is big step in that direction and will also keep communities and wildlife safe.

]]>http://blog.nwf.org/2014/03/one-year-after-mayflower-time-to-say-no-to-dangerous-pipelines/feed/0Industry Giveaway Bill Seeks to Gut Public Review of Dangerous Pipeline Projectshttp://blog.nwf.org/2013/10/industry-giveaway-bill-seeks-to-gut-public-review-of-dangerous-pipeline-projects/
http://blog.nwf.org/2013/10/industry-giveaway-bill-seeks-to-gut-public-review-of-dangerous-pipeline-projects/#commentsTue, 29 Oct 2013 01:41:02 +0000http://blog.nwf.org/?p=87573Read more >]]>Now that Congress is done shuttering our National Parks and needlessly putting the world economy at risk, it’s time for them to turn to another of their favorite pastimes – trying to deny citizens the right to participate in reviewing projects that could poison their water supplies, cause more devastating extreme weather events, and lead to countless wildlife casualties.

Michigan Representative Fred Upton introduced the North American Energy Infrastructure Act, which – if passed – would create a near rubber stamp approval process for massive tar sands pipelines like Keystone XL and deny public participation. It would also do away totally with federal review of reversal or expansion projects, such as the likely tar sands reversal of the Exxon-owned Portland-Montreal Pipe Line in northern New England and the proposed expansion of the Alberta Clipper line which would about double the amount of tar sands flowing through the Great Lakes region.

An old oil pipeline in Winnipeg near the Assiniboine River. Flickr photo by Joel Penner.

This bill is another attack on America’s bedrock environmental law, the National Environmental Policy Act – better known as NEPA. NEPA requires federal agencies to take a hard at the environmental impacts of major projects – like tar sands pipelines – and, most importantly, give the public a chance to learn about those impacts and weigh in with concerns before they are forced to bear the risks.

In the sum, this bill would:

Require projects that import or export oil, gas or electricity across the Canadian or Mexican borders to be approved within 120 days unless the relevant official determines that the project “is not in the national security interests” of the U.S.

Exempt the projects from NEPA, wiping out longstanding requirements that agencies determine whether such projects are needed and that provide the public with the right to comment and review alternatives.

Eliminate pre-project reviews to determine if a project is actually in our national interest.

Exempt from permitting and review major changes – like reversal or expansion – of existing pipelines.

The need for thorough public review of pipeline projects is even more important now that pressure is being exerted to pump dirty, toxic tar sands through new and existing pipelines. The impacts of tar sands are immense:

Tar sands is at least 17% more carbon pollution intensive than regular oil, meaning increased use will accelerate, rather than reverse, the climate disruption that is already wreaking havoc on our planet.

Allowing more tar sands into the United States spurs further destruction of critical boreal forest habitat and could lead to the loss of up to 72 million migratory bird births, striking at the heart of the U.S. and Canada’s shared wildlife heritage.

On Tuesday, Vermont’s Department of Environmental Commissioner David Mears and pipeline expert and attorney Paul Blackburn are testifying before the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Energy and Power on why gutting review of major pipeline projects is a bad idea.

It should not be lost on people that tomorrow’s hearing is on the anniversary of Superstorm Sandy. This is a day when we should be reflecting on the costs of carbon pollution, and the need to make smarter, more informed energy choices. It is a good day to reject a bill that seeks a massive giveaway to the fossil fuel industry and aims to rips the public out of the decision-making process for dangerous and dirty pipelines.

]]>http://blog.nwf.org/2013/10/industry-giveaway-bill-seeks-to-gut-public-review-of-dangerous-pipeline-projects/feed/0BREAKING: Enbridge Tar Sands Pipeline Accident in Minnesotahttp://blog.nwf.org/2013/04/breaking-enbridge-tar-sands-pipeline-accident-in-minnesota/
http://blog.nwf.org/2013/04/breaking-enbridge-tar-sands-pipeline-accident-in-minnesota/#commentsWed, 24 Apr 2013 23:06:25 +0000http://blog.nwf.org/?p=79438Read more >]]>Well, that didn’t take long: Just weeks after ExxonMobil’s Pegasus pipeline spilled hundreds of thousands of gallons of sludge and wreaked havoc in Arkansas, an Enbridge pipeline has sprung a leak near Viking, Minnesota.

Fortunately for Viking residents and the area’s wildlife, it appears that this accident was contained before it became a full-blown disaster like the one in Arkansas: even so, around 600 gallons of oil are estimated to have contaminated the area. The line that burst goes by the boring-by-design name “Line 2,” but the adjoining “Alberta Clipper” pipeline is also a crucial element of this story. DeSmogBlog has more:

The Viking pump station also receives oil from the Alberta Clipper (aka Line 67 pipeline) that carries heavy crude oil and tar sands bitumen from the Alberta tar sands region south from Hardisty to Superior, Wisconsin and refineries in the midwestern United States. It is unclear whether the product that spilled was tar sands-derived diluted bitumen.

The Alberta Clipper is already enormous — carrying nearly 20 million gallons daily to Midwest refineries — but it’s currently under review for a truly giant expansion that would double its capacity and make it the biggest tar sands pipeline in the United States. That’s right — bigger than Keystone 1, Keystone XL, or the Northeast pipeline, capable of pumping 37 million gallons of tar sands oil every day through the Great Lakes region.

You may be asking yourself, “Enbridge, huh? Why is that name so familiar?” Let’s just say this isn’t the company’s first brush with fame: while producing our report Importing Disaster, we discovered that Enbridge was responsible for more than 800 spills in the US and Canada between 1999 and 2010, totaling almost seven million gallons of oil. The biggest of these, of course, was the Kalamazoo River disaster in 2010, when a pipeline linked to the Alberta Clipper burst and sent over a million gallons of tar sands coursing through the community of Marshall, Michigan. That cleanup effort has taken almost three years and nearly a billion dollars, but the Environmental Protection Agency says that it’s still not finished and recently told Enbridge to get back to work to dredge more oil out of the river.

With this latest leak on their resume, it’s fair to ask what more the company can do to earn anything but a slap on the wrist. A good first step would be for the US State Department (the agency in charge of the Alberta Clipper permit) to broaden their study to Enbridge’s entire Great Lakes pipeline system, because expanding Alberta Clipper means that whole system will be exposed to a massive increase in oil volumes — and with it, an even higher chance of disaster.

]]>http://blog.nwf.org/2013/04/breaking-enbridge-tar-sands-pipeline-accident-in-minnesota/feed/2A Monster Rises: Enbridge’s Tar Sands Frankensteinhttp://blog.nwf.org/2012/09/a-monster-rises-enbridges-tar-sands-frankenstein/
http://blog.nwf.org/2012/09/a-monster-rises-enbridges-tar-sands-frankenstein/#commentsThu, 27 Sep 2012 14:46:52 +0000http://blog.nwf.org/?p=67082Read more >]]>How can a repeat offender sneak a tar sands megaproject through the U.S. without raising an eyebrow? That’s the question being asked in light of Enbridge, Inc.’s ongoing attempts to construct a route from Canada to Texas, a “Keystone XL on steroids” that has only recently started attracting attention.

Success, according to Winston Churchill, “is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm.” By that definition the oil pipeline giant Enbridge, Inc. is surely among the most successful companies in the world today. Enbridge is still picking up the pieces from the one of the biggest industrial accidents in U.S. history, 2010′s million-gallon tar sands spill into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan, a debacle that led to record fines and the dubious honor of national name recognition (ask Exxon’s Valdez team how that feels). And now it’s becoming clear that the company is trying to expand its empire from the Midwest to Texas and the coast of Maine, with several projects in the works that could blow rival TransCanada Corp’s “Keystone XL” pipeline project out of the water by comparison.

Enbridge’s Tar Sands Frankenstein

We’ve already taken a look at Enbridge’s covert plans in New England and the Great Lakes region, but they’re jumping into the ring in the Midwest and Texas, too: Enbridge is trying to rig up a network of pipelines to send 35 million barrels per day (about the same amount as KXL) from Canada to the Gulf coast. When you factor in their proposed Northern Gateway pipeline (22 million gallons per day across sensitive habitat in western Canada), Enbridge could increase its tar sands capacity by over 100 million gallons per day, sending the toxic sludge East, South, West, and on around the world.

Map: US Department of State/Peter LaFontaine

Let’s check out the Texas plan for a minute. The company is welding together old pipelines and new ones, reversing the flow on some and pumping up the volume on others, building their very own Frankenstein pipeline down to the Gulf coast.

Lena Moffitt over at the Sierra Club sketched out Enbridge’s “connect-the-dots” approach, which makes it easier for the company to dodge regulators and avoid a knock-down, drag-out fight like the one TransCanada is in over Keystone.

First, Enbridge is trying to expand the “Alberta Clipper” pipeline, which brings tar sands oil from mines in Alberta across the U.S. border to Wisconsin. Second, they would connect the Alberta Clipper to “Line 61,” which runs from Wisconsin to Illinois. Line 61 would link up to the “Flanagan South” pipeline (which isn’t built yet, but Enbridge is working feverishly to get permitted) that runs from Illinois to Oklahoma. And last, the “Seaway” pipeline would carry that oil from Oklahoma to Houston, TX, where it could be refined and shipped overseas for billions in profits.

The zig-zag route cuts through North Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas, placing an enormous section of the United States at risk for a spill—including the Mississippi River and hundreds of other waterways.

Enbridge Expansion Vs. Keystone XL

How does this project stack up against the other monster tar sands pipeline? Both top out around 35 million barrels per day, but the Enbridge project has nearly 700 miles more pipe, all of which is prone to leaks and spills.

Keeping the Monster At Bay

If Keystone XL is the “zombie pipeline” that won’t die, it’s pretty clear the Enbridge expansion is the “Frankenstein” of tar sands. The patchwork, 2,600 mile pipeline is right out of a mad scientist’s dream. (photo: Riccardo Cuppini/flickr)

If you’ve followed the fight over tar sands at all, you know that it’s one of the biggest threats to our global climate. You also know that tar sands pipelines pose an huge risk to people and wildlife, even more so because this company in particular treats disasters like just another day at the office: a recent NWF report found that Enbridge was responsible for over 800 spills in the last decade, totaling almost seven million gallons of crude oil. As if we needed the point underscored, a week after the report was released, an Enbridge pipeline in Wisconsin burst, sending 50,000 gallons onto farmland.

Fortunately, we can still prevent Enbridge from building its tar sands monster. National Wildlife Federation and other groups are working to prevent the Alberta Clipper expansion, which we believe needs a presidential permit from the U.S. State Department. And we also have a chance to shut down the Flanagan South pipeline before it starts, by building opposition in Kansas, Illinois, and Missouri, where the governors and state agencies can step in. This campaign is in the opening stages, so keep an eye out for news on how you can get involved.

We started off with a quote, so let’s end on one, too—this time from everyone’s favorite Midwestern billionaire, Warren Buffett:

Should you find yourself in a chronically leaking boat, energy devoted to changing vessels is likely to be more productive than energy devoted to patching leaks.